Could a royal army have worked?

[Rheagar Prime]

i always thought a past Targ King would buy an army of unsullied and let them be the royal army, but i do see the backlash that may cause. It would have still been awesome though.

[Winterz]

Well I like to think that an army under Robert Baratheon would have worked had he been a decent King, which he obviously wasn't. Though he may see bits of the "Royal army" when Robert unites the banners against the Ironborn and boy they were strong defeating the Ironborn rather easily, even at sea.

The Targaryens ruled by fear, it wasn't ever that many loyalty to the Crown.

It's just impossible to satisfy everyone specially in Westeros with all these powerful houses fighting for their own honour and interests.

I mean:

The Starks hate the Lannisters.

The Lannisters hate everyone that isn't a Lannister

The Baratheons hate the Targaryens

The Targaryens despise everyone, even themselves.

The Tyrell hate the Dornish

The Dornish hate the Lannisters and the Baratheon

The Vale hate I don't know who

The Greyjoys hate the Starks

There are as many independent armies as Lords with properties.

How is anything going to come out of this big mess? An external threat is the only solution that appears to me.

[Malpka]

I think everyones forgetting as well that Dragonstone is the designated heirs region. Therefore in normal Targaryen times the army they can personally call in is not only the Crownlands and Goldcloaks but the army which we see Stannis in command of in Clash. Adding the two regions up along with the manpower which could be generated from KL and you have a pretty formidable force

Indeed. The king can call up a formidable army, theoretically in tens of thousands, without relying on the vassal kings (because each great lord rules what amounts to a huge kingdom).

But that is my whole point - there doesn't seem to be anything like Crown Lands (indeed the closest thing to Crown Lands is the Dragonstone), or mentioned by Darth Rivers, kings direct vassals - how the king then can call up formidable army? And Gold Cloaks are rather town militia not a military force. Also without them king is pretty much a puppet of Great Lords supporting him, hence my previous statement the kings look rather like a pope in medieval world than a king.

@Freerider

I suppose if we were to boil it all down, the pike came from the old Macedonian phalanx of ancient times. While you are correct in that the Swiss did not themselves invent the pike or its drill (they reinvented/relearned that), they alone are "blamed" for its increased prevalence in Renaissance warfare. In the medival period they (pikes) were an anomaly, and were successful (as you said) due in large part due to that fact (or to put it crudely, their "WTF!?!" value).

From your description of "state" i was a little unsure of what you meant by it. In the realm of political science the modern state (or nation-state) in the highest unit at which man governs himself. For the most part Its synonymous with "country". The estates-general that was used in the french government prior to the revolution really has nothing to do with that nation-state concept.

As for origins of pike I am aware of them, however we were talking about pike in medieval times.

Also I believe that pikes were successful rather thanks to the common believe that infantry is, well, useless. They were okay'ish to garrison a keep siege one, or shoot at things, however cavalry were "real" military force and heavy armored knights refused to believe that infantry serves to anything else than being massacred by cavalry charge.

As for General Estates: sorry thats my lacking english, I always though it will be General States, so thanks for that I will try to remember it.

As for nation - state as I am thinking about it I may have been wrong - idea of "state" may actually came from Louis the Saint (still not sure though), however it was Philip 4th, who turn the France in, maybe not nation - state as understand today, yet still something very similar..

[Scipio Africanus]

Well the problem is that after the fall of the Western Roman empire the political system made standing armies impossible. Because Europe broke up into many different pieces it was hard to unify them let alone create a standing army. Even nations succesful at unifying large portions of territory (England, France, Spain) had problems maintaining their militairy. In early modern history instead of feudal lords raising peasant hosts they started relying on mercenaries which did nothing to improve the quality of warfare, as Machiavelli points out in the Prince and the Art of War.

It wasn't until Maurice of Nassau and Gustavus II Adolphus in the 17th century started professionlizing armies by training them in battle tactics. It wasn't until the levee en masse at the end of the 18th century that we see an explosion in numbers of troops (citizen levees) and the forming of nation armies we would recognize today.

So if you take into account that the last professional standing army was the Roman army (typical end date 476 AD) and the creation of citizen armies end 18th century, you can see that Europe took more then a 1000 years to form up a national army.

Westeros isn't ripe for forming standing professional armies, the political system isn't capable of doing that and the 7 regions are too indepandant and regional based to allow such a thing.

[peash]

In my opinion, no, Westeros isn't ready for a Royal Army, it would not be effective for fighting external foes (due to the distances from the central reserve to the borders, an army that encamps on the borders already exists, its called the feudal retinues) and a royal army, that would have to encamp in different parts of the realm to keep their foot on the Lord's necks could easily shift their allegiance to the local populations either through bribes or simple intermarriage.

What the King should do now is make the Riverlords directly subordinate to the Throne, giving the King a much higher number of troops for his potential army, in order to deter rebellions without exposing them to conflicting loyalties.

Aegon I didn't do this because he already had his Ultimate Defence of the Realm^TM namely Dragons and so giving the Riverlands to another lord to take care of meant he could have the prestige of having Seven Kingdoms, and the taxes without actually having to involve himself in the day-to-day administration of the area. After the dragons died, the Riverlords had 160 years of tradition and the King didn't have the troops, so he couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to) change the system.

However, now with the hated Freys and Baelish in control, it would be much easier for the King to take control of the Riverlands. (I say King and not Tommen or the Lannisters because this scenario is equally plausible if another party (say the Tyrells) were to be in control of the King.

Also the King should require the lords or their families to spend a certain amount of time each year (say six months) at court, to keep them from scheming/rebelling (note that even the North can be reached in a few weeks by ship)

[Ser Lepus]

But that is my whole point - there doesn't seem to be anything like Crown Lands (indeed the closest thing to Crown Lands is the Dragonstone), or mentioned by Darth Rivers, kings direct vassals - how the king then can call up formidable army? And Gold Cloaks are rather town militia not a military force. Also without them king is pretty much a puppet of Great Lords supporting him, hence my previous statement the kings look rather like a pope in medieval world than a king.

It seems to me that the lords from the Crownlands refused to send troops to aid the Lannisters; if they had supported them, they could have gathered an army almost as strong as Stannis' one. I find a bit weird that Tywin, Cersei, Joffrey and Tyrion never speak or think about punishing them for their lack of support.

In my opinion, no, Westeros isn't ready for a Royal Army, it would not be effective for fighting external foes (due to the distances from the central reserve to the borders, an army that encamps on the borders already exists, its called the feudal retinues) and a royal army, that would have to encamp in different parts of the realm to keep their foot on the Lord's necks could easily shift their allegiance to the local populations either through bribes or simple intermarriage.

What the King should do now is make the Riverlords directly subordinate to the Throne, giving the King a much higher number of troops for his potential army, in order to deter rebellions without exposing them to conflicting loyalties.

Aegon I didn't do this because he already had his Ultimate Defence of the Realm^TM namely Dragons and so giving the Riverlands to another lord to take care of meant he could have the prestige of having Seven Kingdoms, and the taxes without actually having to involve himself in the day-to-day administration of the area. After the dragons died, the Riverlords had 160 years of tradition and the King didn't have the troops, so he couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to) change the system.

However, now with the hated Freys and Baelish in control, it would be much easier for the King to take control of the Riverlands. (I say King and not Tommen or the Lannisters because this scenario is equally plausible if another party (say the Tyrells) were to be in control of the King.

Also the King should require the lords or their families to spend a certain amount of time each year (say six months) at court, to keep them from scheming/rebelling (note that even the North can be reached in a few weeks by ship)

Yup. I have already said that Cersei should manouver to unite the Crownlands, Dragonstone, Stormlands, Westerlands and Riverlands into a mega-fiefdom under Tommen, which would give him and his descendants the power to really rule Westeros.

[Cadiva]

At the end of the day, the simplest reason for there being no standing army in Westeros, or any need for one, has been mentioned by a number of people in the thread, myself included - no external enemy (if you discount the Wildings beyond the Wall). There is no requirement to have a standing army capable of mobilising anywhere and at any time when you have no-one you're likely to be fighting. A standing army would not work within the feudal system as set up in Westeros because there is too much House Politics - oddly enough exactly the same as it was during the period in which GRRM draws most of his inspiration from.

Not sure if anyone outside of the UK can see it (although I believe it's due to be on PBS or similar in the US in March 2013) but the BBC is currently broadcasting the three history plays which are set in the period of history just before the run up to the War of the Roses - Richard II, Henry IV Parts I and II and Henry V. The series is called The Hollow Crown, it's been filmed and set in contemporary settings to the material (ie in Medieval England settings and locations) and has an incredible cast. There's a few Game of Thrones alumni appearing throughout the three plays as well.

It's well worth it for some background history into the origins of the conflict which eventually split the Plantagenets into the rival houses of York and Lancaster. It pretty much all comes down to Edward III having too many surviving sons :)

Of the parts shown so far, Richard II is just stunning but Henry IV Part II also has some exemplary acting, Part I is the weakest of the adaptations so far imho.

[SeanF]

Most soldiers in the realm are just peasants with farming weapons. Could a standing army have possibly worked? I am not talking about a large standing army, just something in the range of 10,000 troops. That is enough to form a backbone in any armed conflict.

Could it work economically? I know Roberts loans were putting a lot of strain on the crowns finances, but could they afford a royal army with a reasonable King?

If the royal finances had been sensible, there's no reason in principle why a standing army could not have been maintatined.

There appears to be a standing royal navy, and the goldcloaks are a professional force (albeit, more of a gendarmerie than an army)

[Chaircat Meow]

If the royal finances had been sensible, there's no reason in principle why a standing army could not have been maintatined.

There appears to be a standing royal navy, and the goldcloaks are a professional force (albeit, more of a gendarmerie than an army)

Well it would not be true to the setting. No feudal kingdom could afford a large standing force.

Moreover, the king does have a martial class, all his lords and knights, whom he can call upon whenever needed. So there is very little point in maintaining his own paid forces, which would be hideously expensive, pointless for defensive purposes and would only serve to annoy the nobility. Just not a good idea.

Edit: The big thing is supporting knights, with their horses, squires, armour and retainers. You need lots and lots of land to do that, as its all very expensive, and the king doesn't have enough. He could keep a thousand or too relatively ill equipped infantrymen, like the goldcoaks, bumming around though, sure.

[Chaircat Meow]

At the end of the day, the simplest reason for there being no standing army in Westeros, or any need for one, has been mentioned by a number of people in the thread, myself included - no external enemy (if you discount the Wildings beyond the Wall). There is no requirement to have a standing army capable of mobilising anywhere and at any time when you have no-one you're likely to be fighting. A standing army would not work within the feudal system as set up in Westeros because there is too much House Politics - oddly enough exactly the same as it was during the period in which GRRM draws most of his inspiration from.

Not sure if anyone outside of the UK can see it (although I believe it's due to be on PBS or similar in the US in March 2013) but the BBC is currently broadcasting the three history plays which are set in the period of history just before the run up to the War of the Roses - Richard II, Henry IV Parts I and II and Henry V. The series is called The Hollow Crown, it's been filmed and set in contemporary settings to the material (ie in Medieval England settings and locations) and has an incredible cast. There's a few Game of Thrones alumni appearing throughout the three plays as well.

It's well worth it for some background history into the origins of the conflict which eventually split the Plantagenets into the rival houses of York and Lancaster. It pretty much all comes down to Edward III having too many surviving sons :)

Of the parts shown so far, Richard II is just stunning but Henry IV Part II also has some exemplary acting, Part I is the weakest of the adaptations so far imho.

Lots of medieval kingdoms faced external threats and never kept up standing armies. The king just called out his leading vassals whenever an external threat emerged. So why this is the big reason for there being no westerosi army I don't know.

[Cadiva]

Lots of medieval kingdoms faced external threats and never kept up standing armies. The king just called out his leading vassals whenever an external threat emerged. So why this is the big reason for there being no westerosi army I don't know.

Yes, I am aware of that, however most of the European standing armies developed out of a necessity to have a fully mobile force which wasn't beholden to anyone but the Crown/Parliament and the reason for that was the constant pressure of an external enemy or (in the case of the English New Model Army) religious doctrine and a need to overthrow the current regime.

Within a few decades of the New Model Army being established in England, that standing army was off fighting not only within the British Isles (something which is still a sore point even today) but also, even after the restoration of the Monarchy, it was being employed across the Channel in Europe.

In Westeros there is no constant pressure of an external enemy which would necessitate the feudal vassal system changing to a permanent standing army.

[Darth Rivers]

THERE ARE CROWNLANDS, FFS! A cursory glance at the wiki would have sufficed. The northern half of the Stormlands is the king's demesne, his personal artificial province. There are two reasons the levy raised there didn't figure much in the story:

1. Some of it was away fighting in the Riverlands;

2. The plot required KL to be in real danger.

[Scipio Africanus]

Yes, I am aware of that, however most of the European standing armies developed out of a necessity to have a fully mobile force which wasn't beholden to anyone but the Crown/Parliament and the reason for that was the constant pressure of an external enemy or (in the case of the English New Model Army) a need to overthrown the current regime.

Within a few decades of the New Model Army being established in England, that standing army was off fighting the Irish, Scottish and then, even after the restoration of the Monarchy, it was being employed across the Channel in Europe.

Not an expert of that period but the New Model Army may have been a proto-standing army but it did not survive the Protectorate long I believe once the monarchy was restored. In that period governments relied a lot on mercenary armies which was part of the succes of the new model army because they were not mercenaries. Machiavelli could explain why mercenary armies are for the birds.

Yet governments in that period relied heavily on them because of the costs of maintaining a standing professional army. Again, it wasn't until the levee en masse that true standing citizen armies arised again, finally prolonging the legacy of Rome in that aspect.

[Chaircat Meow]

Yes, I am aware of that, however most of the European standing armies developed out of a necessity to have a fully mobile force which wasn't beholden to anyone but the Crown/Parliament and the reason for that was the constant pressure of an external enemy or (in the case of the English New Model Army) religious doctrine and a need to overthrow the current regime.

Within a few decades of the New Model Army being established in England, that standing army was off fighting not only within the British Isles (something which is still a sore point even today) but also, even after the restoration of the Monarchy, it was being employed across the Channel in Europe.

In Westeros there is no constant pressure of an external enemy which would necessitate the feudal vassal system changing to a permanent standing army.

Not sure about this. The big standing French army develops under the Sun King, by which time Richelieu had seen off the Hapsburg threat.

Also the feudal system was long dead and buried by the time the New Model Army came alone and England was almost totally demilitarized in the reign of Charles I. Moreover, Parliament actually wanted to get rid of the army but they stayed in being because they were essentially the power behind the regimes of the 1650s. So they weren't exactly calibrated for external threats, more they became a fixture of politics.

[Chaircat Meow]

Not an expert of that period but the New Model Army may have been a proto-standing army but it did not survive the Protectorate long I believe once the monarchy was restored. In that period governments relied a lot on mercenary armies which was part of the succes of the new model army because they were not mercenaries. Machiavelli could explain why mercenary armies are for the birds.

Yet governments in that period relied heavily on them because of the costs of maintaining a standing professional army. Again, it wasn't until the levee en masse that true standing citizen armies arised again, finally prolonging the legacy of Rome in that aspect.

James II had 30,00 dudes under arms by 1686-7 so the army steadily increased over the Restoration period despite most of it being paid off when Charles II returned.

[total1402]

OP

Yes. This is historically what happened in Europe. The movement from feudal militia to a state army controlled by a central authority; typically an autocratic monarch. In some nations like France this created the rise of absolute monarchy in which in theory and in some cases right the King had limitless power. At the very least this neutered much of the aristocracy of the power, especially military, that it had enjoyed during the medieval period. If it can happen in real life then yes having a state army directed from the center in Westeros is certainly plausable.

However, if GRR Martin did that then the setting would cease to be medieval and would move into the early modern period (1500-1789). In other words the settings premise requires an extremely weak, even impotent central authority. All military force relies upon the lords and they in turn need the (dubious) support of their own knights. The Game of Thrones would be far more boring and less dramatic if the state had a monopoly on armed force; making rebellion by the lords extremely difficult.

Incidently, you could argue that Dany is an absolute monarch/renaisance prince(ss) in that the Unsullied and Brazen Beasts are totally loyal to her personally; not any intermediate authority. The only composite element are her mercenaries which were a staple of early renaisance armies as the medieval period moved to the modern.

[Chaircat Meow]

THERE ARE CROWNLANDS, FFS! A cursory glance at the wiki would have sufficed. The northern half of the Stormlands is the king's demesne, his personal artificial province. There are two reasons the levy raised there didn't figure much in the story:

1. Some of it was away fighting in the Riverlands;

2. The plot required KL to be in real danger.

I dunno whether this was directed at me. If it was, why not use the quote function. And calm down.

The fact no levy was apparently raised from these areas is not relevant to the issue of the standing army, which means a force kept in permanent readiness throughout the whole year, or at least the campaigning season. That requires a huge drain on resources and the king is unlikely to have enough land to provide those resources because, even in Crown and Stormlands, revenues will be sucked up by the bannermen who hold the land as fiefs. The French kings certainly never maintained permanent forces from the Ile de France for example, even though it was the royal domain and I suppose, in some anachronistic sense, would have suited them given the chaos France was usually in.

[Cadiva]

Also the feudal system was long dead and buried by the time the New Model Army came alone and England was almost totally demilitarized in the reign of Charles I. Moreover, Parliament actually wanted to get rid of the army but they stayed in being because they were essentially the power behind the regimes of the 1650s. So they weren't exactly calibrated for external threats, more they became a fixture of politics.

Yes the feudal system in England was dead and buried by the time of the New Model Army and a Parliament established. The creation of the New Model Army came out from totally different pressures than the standing armies created in Europe, specifically in France, which is what I said:

in the case of the English New Model Army)

religious doctrine and a need to overthrow the current regime

Within a few decades of the New Model Army being established in England, that standing army was off fighting not only within the British Isles (something which is still a sore point even today) but also, even after the restoration of the Monarchy, it was being employed across the Channel in Europe.

That doesn't negate the fact that, once established, it was used as a defence against external enemies and pressures rather than a force to keep everyone under control at home. And England certainly wasn't demilitarised during Charles I's reign, he issued warrants to raise an army (the Royal Scots) in 1633 to go and fight in France and in 1661 they were called back to stand as the replacement for the New Model Army in between the end of the Protectorate and the restoration of the Monarchy.

Not an expert of that period but the New Model Army may have been a proto-standing army but it did not survive the Protectorate long I believe once the monarchy was restored.

Yes it did, although only after a bit of a hiccup. The New Model Army was stood down after the accession of Charles II. Unfortunately for him, two days before it was due to stand down, there was an uprising and Charles was forced to ask General George Monck to take his Coldstream Guards (*see below) and put it down and the regiment was immediately re-established as the Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards.

James II had 30,00 dudes under arms by 1686-7 so the army steadily increased over the Restoration period despite most of it being paid off when Charles II returned.

Exactly. King Charles II was the first British Monarch to employ a permanent standing army in peacetime and that continued after his death. There's an interesting article about the various "oldest" British Army regiments on the ARRSE website here which includes details of what happened after the end of the New Model Army.

The Coldstream Guards are the longest continually serving British regiment in existence, founded in 1650. Monck took his troop on a march from Coldstream down to welcome Charles II when he landed in England in 1660 to regain the throne, which is where their name comes from.

All of which is somewhat off topic other than providing more examples why a standing army doesn't usually exist within a feudal society but is usually developed once there is a single position of authority, be it monarch or parliament/government, to raise it and pay for it.

Incidentally, there's a programme on the BBC iPlayer at the moment which looks into the whole Cavalier v Roundhead idea from the Civil War and beyond.

* Cromwell was aware he needed to keep the standing army and he wanted General George Monck to have a body of disciplined troops to go and subdue the Irish (as I said, still a sore point even now) and what eventually became the Coldstream Guards was founded out of the merger of companies from two New Model Army regiments, that of George Fenwick and Sir Arthur Hazelrigg. These leftovers from the NMA eventually formed the basis of what, ultimately, became the British Army (upon the Act of Union in 1707).

[Darth Rivers]

I dunno whether this was directed at me. If it was, why not use the quote function. And calm down.

The fact no levy was apparently raised from these areas is not relevant to the issue of the standing army, which means a force kept in permanent readiness throughout the whole year, or at least the campaigning season. That requires a huge drain on resources and the king is unlikely to have enough land to provide those resources because, even in Crown and Stormlands, revenues will be sucked up by the bannermen who hold the land as fiefs. The French kings certainly never maintained permanent forces from the Ile de France for example, even though it was the royal domain and I suppose, in some anachronistic sense, would have suited them given the chaos France was usually in.

I was not replying to you, I was replying to whichever poster said that there is no royal demesne. Stop trying to appear smarter than your "opponents". In case you haven't fucking noticed already, I FUCKING KNOW THAT. How about you stop being so self centered?

If you had the concentration abilities required to read the thread, you'd have fucking noticed that I have a perfect grasp on how feudal armies worked. Not that I'd expect it from you.